California lawmakers are again trying to limit how police use automated license plate readers, cameras that scan vehicles and help investigators locate stolen cars, wanted suspects and missing people. Senate Bill 1013 would generally require police agencies to delete plate data after 30 days unless it is tied to an active investigation or missing-person case. It would also restrict access and sharing of the information, including with federal and out-of-state agencies. Privacy advocates say stronger safeguards are needed to prevent misuse of the massive amount of data collected. Police groups oppose the bill, arguing license plate readers have become an important crime-fighting tool. A similar measure was vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last year over concerns that the restrictions could hinder investigations and searches for missing people. The new bill is pending before the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
© Copyright 2007 – 2025 Claycord News & Talk
Police Groups Oppose The Bill. I agree.
iKrissy,
.
Amazing, you agree with “Police Groups” which oppose this bill, simply because an article mentioned that “police groups oppose the bill,” without knowing which “police groups” these are and why they’re opposed to it, all because the article said “police groups,” and you’ve convinced yourself that if “police groups” are for or against something, that you must also be for or against it, because you “support the police.” Would you also support a “communist police group,” a “socialist police group,” or a “fascist police group,” which opposes this bill because they’d like to have a surveillance system in place for when they hope to take power?
.
I’m skeptical of government, all government, and I’d much rather live in freedom where bad things sometimes happen, than live in a Big Government Surveillance State where the government has promised “perceived safety,” not “actual safety.”
Nope these scumbags want us robbed, assaulted or murderd…actual question, how can anyone vote for people like this? INSANE!!! vote any and all out of office that support enabling criminality it’s that simple.
Steve,
.
Many other voters believe that it’s “INSANE” to support a Big Government Surveillance State because the government has promised you “perceived safety,” not “actual safety.” The actual question is, “Why do love and trust Big Government, and hate Freedom?”
Who seen the videos of people deflocking the cameras GODS WORK
why would i wanna be seen picking my nose gross
OMG the police will share information to federal and out of state agencies that I went to Safeway 3 times in one day! AAAAHHHHHHH! Privacy Advocates, I wonder what type of phone they carry. Maybe they take the battery out when they are not using it. I hope the public safety advocates crush this non-sense. Whoever is writing this bill needs to be voted out.
WC—CREEKER,
.
It’s already illegal for California’s counties, cities, special districts, and other governmental entities to share Flock data with out of state agencies and the federal government, but they’ve done so anyway, which is why a wave of individual and class action lawsuits have either been filed or are on the way. I guess you don’t care how much these lawsuits are going to cost the public as long as you get your Big Government Surveillance State because these government entities have promised you “safety.”
.
You make the same tired argument as the Concord City Council by not distinguishing between a government controlled surveillance system and a personally owned device that has tracking abilities, like a cell phone. I tend to leave my cell phone at home or remove the battery when I do take it until I need to use it, if I need to use it.
.
The public has personal choices to make when using their cell phone, but they don’t have that same choice while engaged in their Constitutional Right to Travel. You can’t make it in or out of the City of Concord, and many other cities, without being captured by a Flock or Axon camera, and they’re not just capturing your license plate, which is how these Flock cameras were sold to the public and city councils.
.
Why do you choose to believe Big Government when they tell you cameras are going to make you safe, when they haven’t done so yet, and why have you chosen the Big Government Surveillance State over living in a Free State?
https://dontgetflocked.com/
For most places, it’s too late.
yup
True, but some communities have been successful in removing their Flock cameras. Unfortunately, the Concord Police Association controls the Concord City Council, so Concordians are unlikely to be successful in removing our Flock cameras unless they face enough pushback from the public that they feel their political futures are in danger.
They believe it discriminates against their favorite gene pool: The Criminal.
The Fearless Spectator,
.
Why do you believe the government simply because the word “police” is attached to the name of the government agency?
Flock is losing to Axon Outpost and Axon Lightpost.
Axon offers hardware and software packages for First responder and Police vehicles.
https://www.axon.com/
Original G,
.
Most of the people fighting for the removal of Flock cameras don’t even know that the Axon cameras exist.
A camera on a pole should be last thing you worry about.
.
Newer vehicles, know where you are, how often, how you apply your brakes,
turn signal use abrupt lanes changes, your speeds, If you exceed speed limits
and how often you do, etc, etc
.
An they sell all that information.
An who would want to buy that information ? ? ?
Original G,
.
The difference is that individuals make that choice when they decide to purchase a newer car, and you can also make the choice to disconnect the Telematics Control Unit (TCU) in most newer cars. Individuals have a Constitutional Right to travel in the United States, but you can’t make in or out of Concord without being recorded by a Flock camera, and it’s not just the license plate being recorded.
fun facts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2-bxmWOH4U
Angry American,
.
It’s only a matter of time before the Courts find these Flock and Axon cameras unconstitutional as unwarranted searches. The Courts have already struck down geofencing by government policing agencies as unconstitutional and they’ve also struck down aerial surveillance in Baltimore as unconstitutional, both on grounds that they amounted to unwarranted searches.
.
The problem is that Flock and Axon will expand their business with contracts with private businesses, as they’ve already done with Kaiser, Home Depot, and Lowes, instead of government agencies. We need to get our legislators to ban the use of these types of data collection cameras!!! The same goes for the coming swarm of delivery drones mounted with cameras that we just don’t need!!!